Where Brexit and climate-change scepticism converge
CAN you spot the connection between rising carbon-dioxide levels and a European free trade area? Or between free movement of labour and the increased risk of "extreme weather" events? It is not easy to spot the intellectual link. Remarkably, however, many of the leading campaigners for Brexit are sceptics about climate change. There is Nigel, now Lord, Lawson, chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and chair of the Vote Leave campaign; other former Conservative ministers such as John Redwood and Owen Paterson; Douglas Carswell, the UKIP MP (pictured); and journalists like James Delingpole and Matt Ridley (once of The Economist). One issue concerns physics and meteorology; another trade rules and sovereignty concerns. It would seem perfectly possible to believe in staying in the EU on economic grounds and believe that the climate is not very sensitive to changes in carbon-dioxide levels; or to accept the evidence for climate change and argue that Britain might be more prosperous outside the single market. But the overlap between the two camps is much larger than chance would suggest. Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative candidate for mayor of London, is a green campaigner who believes in Brexit. But he is a rare beast. The obvious linking factor is that most of the campaigners are on the political right. There are some left-wing Brexiteers but they tend not to be climate sceptics; Kate Hoey, for example. But this only raises the question of why this should be a right-wing phenomenon. On the American right, there is a kind of pre-Enlightenment approach to science whereby politicians who want to appeal to fundamentalist voters will even deny evolution. There isn't the same tradition in Britain, where religious leaders are probably more concerned about climate change than the average voter. Take Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who recently said that The global churchextraordinarily led on the issue of climate change by Pope Francis and the Ecumenical Patriarchmust be a key partner in tackling climate change. The most likely reason seems to be libertarianism with a hint of nationalism. Brexiteers dislike EU regulations and know that any effective action to tackle climate change will require some kind of global co-operation: carbon taxes or binding targets on emissions. The latter would be the EU writ large and Britain would have even less say in any global agreement, involving some 200 nations, than in an EU regime involving 28. But another factor is surely a knee-jerk reaction to what sceptics see as the "liberal" consensus on climate change, and the mainstream political support for EU membership (the leaders of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National and Labour parties are all in favour of staying, albeit very weakly in the case of Jeremy Corbyn). Here is James Delingpole, one of those with feet in both sceptical camps: Euroscepticism and climate scepticism often go hand in hand, first because many of the very worst, most destructive environmental policies (such as the commitment to "decarbonise" the economy, which led to Bryony Worthington's 2008 Climate Change Act) are originally dreamed up by EU apparatchiks. And second because to express such views in public life requires a fearless, cussed, contra mundum temperament, the product of an intellectual self-confidence and independence many if not most of our craven political class lack. This belief that they are "fearless speakers of truth" gives these campaigners a sense of grievance that leads them to suspect all those who take the contrary view of having a hidden agenda. Scientists working on climate change have an interest in perpetuating their case because of the research grants they receive, sceptics argue. Either they refuse to believe the data on rising temperatures (2015 set a new record), or they try to find wrinkles in the data to deny the trend. Sometimes the debate resembles the long rearguard action that was fought by tobacco enthusiasts as evidence mounted for the view that smoking causes lung cancer: a series of strategic retreats that manage to delay action. Similarly, when Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, warned of the financial risks surrounding a Brexit vote, Douglas Carswell took to Twitter to declare that the governor's view was hardly surprising, given that he was appointed by the British government. Those who worry about the economic consequences of Brexit are told they have no evidence; when they produce that evidence in the form of economic forecasts, or fund-manager polls, or a falling pound, they are accused of scaremongering. Occasionally, sceptics will have a go at the "mainstream media" for distorting the facts, though in the case of the EU, the Times, Telegraph, Sun, Mail and Express are all broadly in the Brexit camp. In short, it is hard to believe there could be any evidence capable of convincing these campaigners they were wrong. Were London to be basking in 90-degree temperatures in February, while rising sea-levels submerged Florida, they would still deny climate change. And if Britain does vote for Brexit and the pound and the economy plunge, they will find some other factor, not the referendum vote, to blame.